CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[Eaglelord17]

Yeah about that, no.

They do get a fair say, just like every other Canadian. They get a vote just like the rest of us to elect representatives. To me that meets the duty to consult as they are represented by their MP like the rest of us.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Glass half full: public sector flex days will be unaffected

B.C. provides economic assessment of Trump’s tariff threat​

As B.C. continues to fight against threatened United States tariffs of 25% on all Canadian imports, the Province has done a preliminary assessment of potential impacts to the B.C. economy of a trade war with the United States.

In president-elect Donald Trump’s tariffs scenario, B.C. could see a cumulative loss of $69 billion in economic activity between 2025 and 2028. The Province’s real GDP is projected to potentially decline by 0.6% year over year in both 2025 and 2026.

Job losses are estimated at 124,000 by 2028 with the largest declines in natural-resource sector export industries and associated manufacturing. Losses would also be felt in the transportation and retail sectors. The unemployment rate could increase to 6.7% in 2025 and 7.1% in 2026, and corporate profits could see an annual decline in the range of $3.6 billion to $6.1 billion.

BC Gov News

As B.C. continues to fight against threatened United States tariffs of 25% on all Canadian imports, the Province has done a preliminary assessment of potential impacts to the B.C. economy of a trade war with the United States.

news.gov.bc.ca

But the backtracking starts...

Premier Eby no longer promising $500 tax rebate with tariff threat looming​

Amid a U.S. tariff threat, B.C. Premier David Eby launches ministry spending reviews, including possibly axing a $500 tax rebate promised in the last election; the province will also look to diversify trade beyond both the U.S. and China.

Premier Eby no longer promising $500 tax rebate with tariff threat looming

Amid a U.S. tariff threat, B.C. Premier David Eby launches ministry spending reviews, including possibly axing a $500 tax rebate promised in the last election; the province will also look to diversify trade beyond both the U.S. and China.

www.biv.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

As widely reported and quoted above, BC's GDP is "projected to potentially decline by 0.6% year over year in both 2025 and 2026" if the threatened tariff is levied.

Earlier news talked about a national slump of roughly 2% of GDP.

Estimates of the costs of interprovincial trade barriers range from 1% to almost 4% of GDP.

Removing internal obstacles would not worsen most Canadians' finances - rather, it would tend to improve economic performance - which is the opposite of what will happen if counter-tariffs and other combative tools are employed. Over to you, PM and premiers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Tabitha Bull is indigenous.

President & CEO - CCIB

Supporting Indigenous businesses and economic growth

www.ccab.com

Good catch - dopey me pigeonholed her into the "biz only" category.

Looks like a Nepotism/Patronage fest to me.

Largest Canadian companies by market capitalization

List of the largest companies in Canada by market capitalization, Canada's top publicly traded companies by market cap.

companiesmarketcap.com

The business representation is pathetic....

"Business" isn't only banks - looks like at least some of the industries that'll be hit (or could be used as levers?) are here. There are some notable biggies missing (transportation? minerals other than uranium?), but a bigger table would have likely drawn a different type of political fire so ...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Good catch - dopey me pigeonholed her into the "biz only" category.

"Business" isn't only banks - looks like at least some of the industries that'll be hit (or could be used as levers?) are here. There are some notable biggies missing (transportation? minerals other than uranium?), but a bigger table would have likely drawn a different type of political fire so ...

No Finance, No Industrials, Basically no Mining, Oil & Gas, No Transportation.

There isn't one bit of representation from the 30 largest Companies in Canada. Cameco is #38.

 

[Kirkhill]

Glass half full: public sector flex days will be unaffected

B.C. provides economic assessment of Trump’s tariff threat​

As B.C. continues to fight against threatened United States tariffs of 25% on all Canadian imports, the Province has done a preliminary assessment of potential impacts to the B.C. economy of a trade war with the United States.

In president-elect Donald Trump’s tariffs scenario, B.C. could see a cumulative loss of $69 billion in economic activity between 2025 and 2028. The Province’s real GDP is projected to potentially decline by 0.6% year over year in both 2025 and 2026.

Job losses are estimated at 124,000 by 2028 with the largest declines in natural-resource sector export industries and associated manufacturing. Losses would also be felt in the transportation and retail sectors. The unemployment rate could increase to 6.7% in 2025 and 7.1% in 2026, and corporate profits could see an annual decline in the range of $3.6 billion to $6.1 billion.

BC Gov News

As B.C. continues to fight against threatened United States tariffs of 25% on all Canadian imports, the Province has done a preliminary assessment of potential impacts to the B.C. economy of a trade war with the United States.

news.gov.bc.ca

But the backtracking starts...

Premier Eby no longer promising $500 tax rebate with tariff threat looming​

Amid a U.S. tariff threat, B.C. Premier David Eby launches ministry spending reviews, including possibly axing a $500 tax rebate promised in the last election; the province will also look to diversify trade beyond both the U.S. and China.

Premier Eby no longer promising $500 tax rebate with tariff threat looming

Amid a U.S. tariff threat, B.C. Premier David Eby launches ministry spending reviews, including possibly axing a $500 tax rebate promised in the last election; the province will also look to diversify trade beyond both the U.S. and China.

www.biv.com

Hit to BC Economy of 69 BCAD over 4 years or about 18 BCAD per year.

Cost of the Transmountain Pipeline 34 BCAD

According to the latest calculations, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, which the Trudeau government purchased from Kinder Morgan in 2018, will cost $3.1 billion more than the $30.9 billion projected last May, bringing the total cost to about $34 billion—more than six times the original estimate.

Trans Mountain pipeline’s soaring cost provides more proof of government failure

Since the government purchased the project for $4.5 billion, the cost of the Trans Mountain expansion has ballooned to $34 billion.

www.fraserinstitute.org

Cost of the Kitimat LNG Plant and Pipeline 40 BCAD

The LNG Canada project is about 90 per cent complete. It represents a $40-billion investment, including the $18-billion LNG plant in Kitimat, the Coastal GasLink pipeline and upstream natural gas assets in northeastern B.C.

$18B LNG Canada Kitimat facility set to introduce natural gas

Project, which is about 90-per-cent complete, is slated to be operational next summer

www.biv.com

....

Let's not get bent over the axle about big numbers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

No Finance ...

Not to worry, my dude - if Mark Carney wins the Running of the Snakes, our new PM'll know MORE than enough about what banks want, am I right?

 

[Kirkhill]

It's 'Drill, Baby, Drill,' Yet Time to 'Chill, Baby, Chill' on Lower Prices

The energy policy of the incoming Trump administration seems as concise as it is clear: Slash domestic energy costs under the mantra, popularized in 2008 by GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Interesting article from Reg Varney.

....

Here's a thought:

Supply goes up. Cost goes down.
Price goes up. Demand goes down.

So.

Trump imposes a 25% tariff on Canadian oil. Demand for Canadian oil drops. Alberta takes in less money. Quebec receives less equalization.
Trump doesn't impose a 25% tariff but instead increases the supply of US oil. Demand for Canadian oil drops. Alberta takes in less money. Quebec receives less equalization.

Net effect is the same.

Solution is the same for Canada. Find other customers.



....



A couple of graphs charting the price of Alberta oil (WCS) - As high as 120 USD per barrel to as low as 5 USD per barrel. With massive volatility.

Assume a projected value of 50 USD per barrel. Add a 25% tariff to that and the price rises to 62 USD per barrel. The Yanks were paying more than that in the Obama years. Conversely, Alberta eats the tariff and only gets 37 USD per barrel. Pretty much what it got during the last Trump years.

...

These are annoyances. Not reasons to dissolve the country.

 

[suffolkowner]

It's 'Drill, Baby, Drill,' Yet Time to 'Chill, Baby, Chill' on Lower Prices

The energy policy of the incoming Trump administration seems as concise as it is clear: Slash domestic energy costs under the mantra, popularized in 2008 by GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Interesting article from Reg Varney.

....

Here's a thought:

Supply goes up. Cost goes down.
Price goes up. Demand goes down.

So.

Trump imposes a 25% tariff on Canadian oil. Demand for Canadian oil drops. Alberta takes in less money. Quebec receives less equalization.
Trump doesn't impose a 25% tariff but instead increases the supply of US oil. Demand for Canadian oil drops. Alberta takes in less money. Quebec receives less equalization.

Net effect is the same.

Solution is the same for Canada. Find other customers.

View attachment 90604

....

View attachment 90606View attachment 90605

A couple of graphs charting the price of Alberta oil (WCS) - As high as 120 USD per barrel to as low as 5 USD per barrel. With massive volatility.

Assume a projected value of 50 USD per barrel. Add a 25% tariff to that and the price rises to 62 USD per barrel. The Yanks were paying more than that in the Obama years. Conversely, Alberta eats the tariff and only gets 37 USD per barrel. Pretty much what it got during the last Trump years.

...

These are annoyances. Not reasons to dissolve the country.

WCS ca $65 right now. Worst case for us is Trumpy doesnt tariff the oil and Ottawa reverse tariffs it or something

 

[brihard]

Minister Anand, in a CTV interview, has promised strong retaliatory measures against the U.S. if tariffs go forward. She didn’t mince words; she’s talking openly about a “trade war”, and said “If pushed, our response will be the single largest trade blow the U.S. economy has ever endured”. Sounds like nothing is off the table.

Canada threatens ‘single largest trade blow’ to U.S. if Trump follows through on tariffs

Transport and Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand says Canada is ready to take on U.S. president-elect Donald Trump and levy countermeasures immediately, should the incoming commander-in-chief follow through with his threat to impose punishing tariffs on all Canadian imports on day one of his...

www.ctvnews.ca

I wasn’t sure which thread to put this in; might be that a separate Canada - US relations thread might be useful going forward to capture relevant material from both sides? Or maybe roll it into and rename the border integrity thread I started, and move that to Global Politics?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I wasn’t sure which thread to put this in; might be that a separate Canada - US relations thread might be useful going forward to capture relevant material from both sides? Or maybe roll it into and rename the border integrity thread I started, and move that to Global Politics?

The border integrity tread strikes me more as a "politics of security" thread, but you make a good case.

I'll start creating a "CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife" thread within the Canadian Politics area, pulling this in as well as a lot of tariff-specific stuff from the Annexation thread.

Thanks - please stand by ....

Army.ca Staff

 

[Jarnhamar]

“If pushed, our response will be the single largest trade blow the U.S. economy has ever endured”. Sounds like nothing is off the table.

Is this a hollow threat or does Canada actually have the capability of "landing a blow"?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Is this a hollow threat or does Canada actually have the capability of "landing a blow"?

It's a hollow threat

 

[Remius]

Is this a hollow threat or does Canada actually have the capability of "landing a blow"?

Not sure. Last NAFTA negotiations Canada did strike back effectively. No clue what this blow would be now.

 

[brihard]

Is this a hollow threat or does Canada actually have the capability of "landing a blow"?

We cannot devastate their economy as they can ours, but we can certainly increase costs on a lot of goods and services and hurt US businesses in a lot of areas. We're still their largest export destination.

A lot of this comes down to what does Trump actually want, what would cause him pain versus reward, what would affect his cost benefit analysis?

There are likely additional lawyers to this that we aren’t necessarily seeing.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada's options:

Stop buying stuff we need and want from the US.
Stop selling stuff that finances our economy.
Sell stuff are a higher price which will result in us not selling stuff that finances our economy.

 

[GR66]

Is this a hollow threat or does Canada actually have the capability of "landing a blow"?

The scale of our trade with the US definitely gives us the capability of "landing a blow" but the question is do we really WANT to land a blow?

From Google's "AI Overview":

Canada is the largest export market for 34–36 U.S. states. Canada and the United States are each other's largest export markets, and this trade relationship supports millions of jobs in both countries.

Explanation

• In 2022, the U.S. exported nearly $429 billion in goods and services to Canada.
  
  
• Canada is the top export market for more than 30 U.S. states.
  
  
• Canada is the primary or secondary export market for 45 U.S. states.
  
  
• Michigan has been Canada's top trading partner among U.S. states since 1990.
  
  
• The U.S. and Canada have the most comprehensive trading relationship in the world.
  
  
• Canada is the largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S.

Clearly we have the economic capability of "landing a blow" in a trade war with the United States.

Is a "war" of any type what we really want with our largest trading partner and the major global superpower? The immediate effects of Trump's planned tariffs will hit hard on both sides of the border and will be quite inflationary for the Americans. Those negative effects when they start hitting US companies, employees and consumers that rely on products and materials coming from Canada will be blamed on Trump and his tariff policy.

Despite Trump's recent rhetoric about Canada taking advantage of the US most Americans think generally positively about Canada and Canadians (when they think about us at all). If however we continue with our aggressive rhetoric and enter a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States then economic nationalism will kick in and Canada will be seen as the cause of their economic pain.

While economic retaliation may result in an eventual resolution to the tariff dispute the likely long term outcome will be that Americans will see how much their economy is at risk from the actions of a (potentially) hostile Canadian government and the natural response by the US will be to eliminate those vulnerabilities by replacing the existing trade links with Canada by on-shoring their supply chains.

Canada is not like Mexico where a large wage gap with the US means that US companies would find it difficult to on-shore Mexican products without significantly increasing their cost. Wages and production costs are similar in Canada and the US so it's certainly not impossible for the US for example to on-shore all of the automotive industry production that currently happens in Canada.

Most of the fuel used in the US midwest refineries comes from Canada and those refineries are set up to run on the heavy crude that Canada produces rather then the light crude produced in Texas. Cutting off Canadian oil exports to the US (or raising the price) would have a significant impact on the price of gasoline in the US heartland. While a US tariff caused increase in prices (from Trump's tariffs) would create political pressure from within the US to change the policy, the effect of Canadian caused price increases may see a push to re-tool the Midwest refineries to use Texas light crude (a significant portion of which is currently exported to countries with refineries designed to use it) in order to ensure American energy security. The ultimate impact for Canada would be that we would potentially lose our largest (and easiest to access) energy export market. The same thing might happen with the electrical grid. Currently they are highly interconnected North to South but threaten the US's energy security and they will be encouraged to nationalize by increasing domestic generation capacity and breaking/minimizing the cross border connections.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crude-oil-tariffs-united-states-canada-1.7434926

In my opinion we need to see Trump as an immediate but ultimately short term (4 year) threat. We need to manage that threat in such a way that we are not also potentially crippling ourselves economically in the long term. We can't change our Geography. Like it our not our future is tied to our southern neighbour. We need to manage that relationship in such a way that we do not damage it and threatening to impose economic hardship on our most important neighbour and trading partner is not a smart move.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not sure. Last NAFTA negotiations Canada did strike back effectively. No clue what this blow would be now.

Effectively? How is that qualified?

If you look over the major concessions Canada made to the US, it doesn’t seem as Canada kept little to anything unscathed that existed in NAFTA.

To wit:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4845239

 

[Remius]

Effectively? How is that qualified?

Targeted tariffs and pressure seems to have been effective.

If you look over the major concessions Canada made to the US, it doesn’t seem as Canada kept little to anything unscathed that existed in NAFTA.

To wit:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4845239

And yet the US seems to think they got a raw deal out of that.

 

[Good2Golf]

Targeted tariffs and pressure seems to have been effective.

In keeping things less bad/worse than they could have been?

And yet the US seems to think they got a raw deal out of that.

That’s Negotiation 101. All sides always feel they missed out on something. The majority of key items in USMCA, Canada gave something up, relative to NAFTA. If someone is going for the “we got a good deal” position, I’d like to see them at least qualify a “it could have been [this] bad!”